Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Calling All Apologists
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Lee
(new)
Feb 14, 2015 01:50PM
It appears we finally have a true atheist willing to participate and begging for convincing arguments. Where are the apologists now? Have we concluded that apologetics are a waste of time, or can we ramp this site up??
reply
|
flag
Lee, gimme a break. Stuart has his ammunition full of catchy anecdotes, Wikipedia reference, and all sorts of red herrings and informal fallacies. I've personally met agnostics (professors of academia) far more intellectually robust who are actually willing to dialogue about theology rather than saying "why didn't God stop the holocaust." Form a sound inductive or deductive argument FOR atheism as a positive proposition and not merely a negative argument against theism, and then I'll actually spend my previous time in some dialogue. There are a million Stuarts, renegade atheists, online, and they're all equally asinine. I dialogue on a regular basis with non believers who actually smart enough to understand logic and philosophy and are willing to do so mutually with the rule of charity towards one another.
Brent, I think if you engage Stuart on an intellectual level instead of the conversations I've seen so far, he'll drop the "you guys are nuts to believe this silliness" and switch gears. Go back to what apologists do well...offer evidence of God's existence instead of trying to turn biblical myths into reality.
Lee - evidence of God's existence includes the miracles performed by Jesus and corroborated by eyewitnesses and his resurrection from the dead which is also confirmed by eyewitnesses. This can be pooh-poohed by any skeptic. The faith aspect of belief cannot be minimized nor can it be bypassed by reason.My logical pathway toward God comes from the science side of the ledger and is probably more rational than any Artistic approach. Nevertheless, reason alone, as pointed out by Stuart, should not be enough to convince any critical thinker of the existence of a Divine Creator. Faith on top of reason is necessary to close the deal.
Given that Vespasian was doing many of the same miracles at about the same time they were first being attributed to Jesus by the Gospel of Mark, I would suggest that such miracles provide equal evidence for the existence of Jupiter. In other words--like any other reasonable apologetic discourses--we can argue that God exists but we can't make any real headway toward describing God (or the gods). IMO, that's where faith/belief fits in. Faith steps in and says "okay, there might be something out there, I think I'll choose Christianity."It is my opinion, especially after years in this forum, that apologists overplay their hand by trying to describe God or trying to select a preferred means of worship. That tends to ruin their credibility.
A man like Stuart is not interested in engaging intellectually with logical arguments for or against the existence of God, but rather putting down Christians and promoting his book.
Lee wrote: "Given that Vespasian was doing many of the same miracles at about the same time they were first being attributed to Jesus by the Gospel of Mark, I would suggest that such miracles provide equal evi..."This is sophomoric; the miracles of Christ are attested to and well corroborated as historical facts, the biggest of His obviously his resurrection which is the best explanation for the empty tomb. Consult Craig or Habermas on this, resurrection experts.
These are all more likely explanations than that a crucified man died and rose healed from the tomb. This list comes from about five seconds of brainstorming; I'm sure I'll think of many more if the conversation continues.Jesus never existed
The tomb never existed
Jesus was placed in a different tomb
Jesus' body was removed from the tomb
A trickster impersonated Jesus
A trickster lied about his resurrection, which Paul then believed
His resurrection story was originally not meant to be understood literally
Pick a different miracle if you think it will have more historical corroboration, Brent. I'm convinced that Jesus existed and that he was known as a healer, but you'll have a heck of a time showing that any of the impossibilities attributed to him are "historical facts." Don't overplay your hand...that is what gives apologetics a bad name.
Oh please, Lee, if you would take one second to take your head out of the ground and realize these theories have been put forth hundreds of years ago by our great German theologians and all have been thoroughly refuted. Current dialogue on the resurrection is not discussing how the disciples stole the body, this matter was settled a century ago. Have you read the experts on BOTH SIDES on the resurrection? No one is saying this anymore. Have you read men like Gehrd Lüdehmann on the resurrection? Or are you, too, content with Wikipedia like Stuart.
Brent, none of my suggested possibilities has been so thoroughly refuted as the idea that a man can die on the cross, remain three days dead, and then rise to live again. You are proposing that impossibility as the "best explanation," which is utter nonsense ... "sophomoric," to use one of your words.Worse yet is when you say his miracles are "attested as historical facts." I mean, come on, pull YOUR head out of the ground.
Lee after all these years I assumed YOU were the voice of Christian Apologetics. (why else would you be here?)I was hoping you would convince him...
The first Biblical advised rule of Godly apologetics is:Don't expect Godly results from human efforts. All we are told to do is hold up the Truth of God.
Now there's no shortage of evidence and data - but for those who hate the God of the Bible; it's impossible for them to see it.
But at the end of the day all we have is: the word of God/and reality. Most atheists and agnostics are not honest with either. But it's fun to try!!!
Lee wrote: "Brent, none of my suggested possibilities has been so thoroughly refuted as the idea that a man can die on the cross, remain three days dead, and then rise to live again. You are proposing that imp..."Lee also wrote: I'm convinced that Jesus existed and that he was known as a healer, but you'll have a heck of a time showing that any of the impossibilities attributed to him are "historical facts."
Lee at the risk of covering ground we have covered before, I'm with Brent on this question for several reasons:
(1) Christ's bodily resurrection has been attested to by the very early records we have of recorded of eye witness testimony, has been affirmed by Roman Catholics, Protestants, Anabaptists and other denominations, and has been recorded in the earlies creeds of the universal church.
(2) The NT documents themselves have excellent support with many, many very early manuscripts. This to me is very strong historical evidence.
(3) Christ Followers (including me) attest to personal evidence in their lives that Christ is alive and interacting with us. If you read the personal stories of other Christ Followers they claim the same thing.
So what's on the other side? As far as I can see:
(1) The "impossibilities" you are asserting are universal negatives which cannot logically be categorically impossible. It seems to me the best argument you can make is "they are improbable."
(2) Where is the compelling evidence for the trickster? The other tomb? I don't see it.
(3) What I do see is a massive anti-supernatural bias which states, based on world view "miracles and signs can't happen." Those are presuppositions and not evidence.
I fear this will be an ongoing disagreement between us. Asking me to set the central assertion and affirmation of the Christ Follower aside to follow other worthy objectives such as arguing for the existence of God (God's existence follows from Christ's claims anyway if they are accepted) makes no sense to me. It's like asking me to throw away the chocolate bar to eat the wrapper. I'm here for the chocolate not the wrapper. Perhaps my metaphor was uncalled for.
One final point leaves me cold-the idea that above all else I have to act and think to maintain credibility. I would like to be respected and taken seriously, but I am a truth seeker first. If I have to choose between following the evidence wherever it leads and social credibility, much as I may dislike the social consequences, I have to follow the evidence.
We can understand and articulate our contradictory positions without agreeing with them and still be friends, can't we?
Peter, you may have misunderstood. I am asserting that all of the alternatives I presented are more likely than the impossible. (If you prefer extremely improbable, that works for me). I'm not presenting any evidence for them whatsoever; merely contradicting Brent, who thinks Jesus' physical resurrection should be considered "historical fact."The whole idea is silliness. If unbiased historians could conclude that a physical resurrection happened, what need would we have for apologists? The matter would be settled.
If we break down your three points, nothing you say could possibly be construed as evidence strong enough to be considered "historic fact."
1. We have no first-hand accounts of Jesus' resurrection; even Paul's account of seeing Jesus as a light from heaven is second hand and is quite late. Mark, written about 70 CE, doesn't include a resurrection appearance. Matthew, probably the earliest account at somewhere around 55 years after Jesus died, does describe a resurrection but even if you believe he indicated a physical resurrection, it contains so many problems that it should be discounted immediately. Luke's story contradicts Matthew in many ways, and John's resurrected Jesus isn't physical at all...until we reach the addendum to John's gospel in the final chapter, which provides more contradictions. It just doesn't add up at all, certainly not something that a reasonable historian could consider a "historical fact."
2. I see the reliability of the documents as irrelevant, given the utter failure of (1).
3. Divine interaction today of some sort I do not deny. But surely you agree it offers no evidence whatsoever of a historical event 2,000 years ago.
Brent's claim of historicity is a complete and utter joke.
If unbiased historians There is no such thing. Everyone is biased.
Your exact words were that the following are "more likely" than that a crucified man rose:
Jesus never existed
The tomb never existed
Jesus was placed in a different tomb
Jesus' body was removed from the tomb
A trickster impersonated Jesus
A trickster lied about his resurrection, which Paul then believed
His resurrection story was originally not meant to be understood literally
Why are they more likely? It goes back to paradigms and biases - if you look at the universe as one in which God exists, then resurrection is just as likely then these. If you look at a universe with no God, then of course these are more likely. To say your list is more likely, your bias is showing.
Maybe historical "fact" is an over-reach. Is anything a historical "fact"?
Why is Brent's claim a "joke" though? If you want to invoke professional scholars, there are a good many who believe in the resurrection, and they are not just yokels at Bible colleges in West Virginia. There is a wide gulf between something being a "fact" and something being a "joke". Some can look at the historical evidence and conclude a resurrection makes the most sense, others disagree. I don't think it is charitable to call either conclusion a "joke".
Of your list of examples, I think a resurrection makes more sense than many on the list."Jesus was placed in a different tomb" - Surely by the time Paul began preaching, not that long later, someone could easily have pointed out the real tomb. If it was simply a mistaken tomb, this would easily be remedied.
"A trickster impersonated Jesus" - And fooled his best friends? And invented the idea of a resurrection in present day, something Jews only expected in the future? Same with lying about the resurrection - no one expected a bodily resurrection in the middle of time.
"Jesus' body was removed from the tomb" - What motive? Why? Who? Again, did these mysterious people invent a present-day resurrection? And they preached his resurrection in the face of opposition, defending a lie they made up even to the death?
Unless you have naturalistic presuppositions, and they are just that, presuppositions, there is no reason to prefer most of your explanations over a bodily resurrection. Look at the evidence and make a decision, but with evidence your choices become more limited (maybe your last one, the story was not meant literally, would be a possible alternative that makes sense).
David, let me ask you something. Suppose you find an anonymous letter dated perhaps 200 years ago, describing someone who was tortured and killed, then buried, and three days later came physically back to life. This is not a first-hand account and makes no attempt to provide sources or evidence. He's a religious founder of sorts, though tied to some fundamentalist background...let's make it a new Islamic break-off in the Middle East. What do you consider the most likely explanation? Fraud? Trickery? Fiction? Misunderstanding? Misplaced evangelism? Honorific stories? Anything but literal truth, right?
I realize there's more to the story, but on the face of it, it's going to take a heck of a lot of convincing, right? And we don't have that. We have other documents which built atop the first story but which become more and more supernatural as time went on, which contradict one another, which make supernatural claims that should easily be verified if there truly were witnesses, but which cannot.
And then here's the kicker. These documents make awkward references to prophecies hundreds of years beforehand, so much so that it becomes obvious they will go to most any length to identify their man with the prophecies. They clearly will even make up "facts" about the man.
What now? Who in their right mind thinks the most likely explanation is that he really climbed out of the tomb alive?
Lee wrote: "Peter, you may have misunderstood. I am asserting that all of the alternatives I presented are more likely than the impossible. (If you prefer extremely improbable, that works for me). I'm not pres..."I think I did misunderstand you Lee. Perhaps it's an inherent limitation in communicating through text alone.
In the process though, I think I learned something about my view of history and perhaps yours as well. When I was taught history in school, information about Rameses, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and the Duke of Wellington were all presented to me as equally substantial and equally well established. I've come to realize this is nonsense. I know, for example, that everything before 1000 AD is much harder to establish than more recent events.
So I see the evidence for Christ and his resurrection as a mountain rising out of a desert, with the flatness of the desert describing the real support for other facts that are commonly accepted as unshakably true.
You, on the other hand, (here I'm trying to test my understanding) see the conventional historical teaching about Rameses to Caesar as thoroughly substantiated. So going back to my metaphor, from your perspective, the historical records about Christ are not a mountain in the desert, but a small mountain in a towering mountain range.
Am I getting it right?
Now I know we still have huge differences. You see contradictions everywhere, while I see authentic eye witness accounts with differences that are easily reconcilable and actually attest to the independence of the witnesses (after your note, I went back to read Mark again and concluded as I did before, that he does indeed testify to Christ's resurrection (as do the other gospel writers) even if I exclude 16:9-20).
Lee, as always I value your input since you cause me to think.
Lee wrote: "David, let me ask you something. Suppose you find an anonymous letter dated perhaps 200 years ago, describing someone who was tortured and killed, then buried, and three days later came physically ..."Lee, I know you directed this at David, but since I'm online, I thought I would give my perspective.
I am not an anti-supernaturalist. That means from time to time (i.e. rarely as Lewis argued) events can take place that are not caused from within our space-time continuum (i.e. we do not live in a closed system). So if I find an anonymous letter testifying to an authentic resurrection, I cannot rule it out as impossible. The only data I have is the letter. As an evidentialist I have to accept that as the only data. There is nothing on the table to contradict it.
Would I stake my life on the letter being true? No. It could be a fraud.
Would I stake my life on it being false? No, because from my best understanding of the nature of reality, resurrections, healings, and foretellings can happen.
Lee, 200 years ago? So for a parallel, we're talking about 230 CE in the Roman Empire? And I get all the evidence they had then?*It'd be more like four anonymous letters...or if you want to get technical we could recognize some shared sources (Q). Either way, its more than one. Plus, you get a fifth source (Paul). So maybe one anonymous letter is questionable, but 4-5 are less so.
*I also get a community of people who have lived in some sort of continued existence with the first people who followed that dead guy.
*I also get a few references outside of this community to people who, though they do not believe it, point out this community thinks a dude rose from the dead.
*And it is not just one community in one geographical location - it is a widely spread group in all corners of the Empire.
So in your hypothetical, if I just came upon this document alone in a sand dune somewhere, I'd probably not buy it. But if I take the reality of the Christian faith circa 230 AD, I'd have to take it more seriously.
As I examine the evidence:
Fraud? Maybe, but there doesn't seem to be evidence for this.
Trickery? Maybe, but again, no evidence.
Fiction? More possible.
Misunderstanding? This might be the most probable
Misplaced evangelism? I don't know what this means.
Honorific stories?
Anything but literal truth, right? Actually no. What we know of the Christians, circa 230 AD, unless we rule out supernatural explanations from the start, "anything" but literal truth seems close-minded.
And then here's the kicker. These documents make awkward references to prophecies hundreds of years beforehand, so much so that it becomes obvious they will go to most any length to identify their man with the prophecies. They clearly will even make up "facts" about the man.
But there were no prophecies of resurrection and even the prophecies the writers did apply seem to be a stretch. If there had been exact prophecies that we then claimed fulfillment, that would be more fishy to me. If everyone's story agrees when reporting a crime, it points to collusion. The fact they had to think up creative intepretations shows this was unexpected.
I'm not saying it is a slam dunk, the thing that any rational person ought to believe. But to call it a joke to believe it is insulting.
Thank you David for this thoughtful post. Yes, to call it a joke for believing is absolutely insulting. You're prejudices are masked as scholarly objective inquiry, Lee.
What rot this has become. As a geneticist, I believe in the research that has been done before my time because no one has the time and equipment to repeat every experiment to test it's validity. This is true of EVERY discipline unless you want to reinvent the wheel every time before you drive your car. We are all completely dominated by our beliefs from the time we get up in the morning. The trick is in having the discernment, which is a Biblical gift, to sort the wheat from the chaff!
I don't back down on this one. To claim Christ's bodily resurrection is a "well-corroborated historical fact" (see post #7) is a complete joke.If Brent wishes to retract his claim and instead assert that it's reasonable to believe it happened, then that's a different matter. (I trust he would admit it's also reasonable to believe it didn't happen.)
Lee quote:" To claim Christ's bodily resurrection is a "well-corroborated historical fact" (see post #7) is a complete joke."
Compared to other historical facts = it's incredibly equal.
Peter wrote: "You, on the other hand, (here I'm trying to test my understanding) see the conventional historical teaching about Rameses to Caesar as thoroughly substantiated. So going back to my metaphor, from your perspective, the historical records about Christ are not a mountain in the desert, but a small mountain in a towering mountain range"Hey, that's not bad, Peter!
Why should it be incredible to you that God should raise the dead? Did he not make the entire world?
Are you hung up on the word "fact"? I do think that is a bit of an overstatement? Would you say those of us who merely think it is rational to believe the resurrection are also a "joke"? I'd add that it is also rational to reject it.
Of course it is reasonable insofar as it doesn't pose a logical contradiction, Lee. I don't retract my statement, I believe that that the Resurrection hypothesis is the best explanation for the empty tomb. Those who reject it have just as much work to do in order to show that their explanation is not merely reasonable or not logically contradictory, but that it is the most probable, not just possible. It is clear that those who seek to do so show a clear anti-supernatural prejudice as David pointed out. This as been demonstrated by philosophers a thousand times over, and I'm not going to sit here and beat a dead horse.What says the group?
This part of the group says:I like to think I'm the first guy to question modern miracles, revelations, prophecies, healings, angels, demon possessions, magic beans, atheistic assumptions, Gay propaganda, Islamic peace... and a history of Popes!~
But thankfully God gave us some impressive information to work with around the resurrection. Whoever got this story going was brilliant. And since it clearly wasn't one person: I'll give God the credit.
Can we get back to the claim, please: That the resurrection is a historical fact. Yes, David, I'm hung up on the word fact.
You know I'm not sure Brutus really killed Julius Caesar. Can anyone really prove that happened? I mean apart from all the witnesses that saw it.Can we really prove it happened? I mean Brutus is probably just a metaphor for the secret society that really controlled ancient Rome. The story was clearly fabricated by the priests in Rome who never intended it to be "actual history"
Apples to apples, Joshua, please. Let's compare Caesar's death with Jesus's death, and Caesar's miracles to Jesus's miracles. What goes in the history books as fact?I also have to ask: John's gospel explains that the resurrected Jesus could only be seen by believers. Does that sound like something that belongs in a history book?
I guess that depends on who you believe.
Fair enough Lee. Absent a definition of "fact" it may be a bit much. I have to ask, since we've been chatting on here for years now, what do you think of those of us who, as Brent said in his most recent post, think the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation? I can't speak for him, but when I say that I will admit it is also reasonable not to believe it; I can see how someone wouldn't.
David wrote: "what do you think of those of us who, as Brent said in his most recent post, think the resurrection is the most reasonable explanation?"It leaves me feeling ungrounded, David. It leaves me feeling like investigative logic is untrustworthy, if we consider supernatural explanations on a par with natural explanations. The candy cane in my stocking probably did come from a fat fellow in a sleigh.
We're not talking about beliefs, JoshuaYes we are, to accept the reality of Julius Caesar requires believing the testimony of ancient Roman documents. Believing in Jesus requires believing the testimony of the apostles.
If I say to you I'm married you may believe me, or you may ask for proof. If you are convinced I'm not then you may ask to see the certificate.
If you are very sceptical you may suggest my certificate is forged. I would then have to take you to meet the minister whom you may say is a fake. He would show you his certificate but it still requires you to believe his certificate is real to accept I am married.
I've never been to Iraq but I believe there's a war there because someone told me.
Any facts that exist are facts for one of two reasons.
1. You experienced it yourself
2. You believe a witness
Outside of personal experience belief governs reason. You wrote
John's gospel explains that the resurrected Jesus could only be seen by believers. Does that sound like something that belongs in a history book?
Your path of reasoning springs from what you believe just like everyone else.
Now Paul said the message is foolishness. So of course many people won't believe the witnesses, it sounds ridiculous. That is of course until they have an experience of their own.It's a spiritual gospel.
Some of the Bible is ridiculous......but so is our world and universe.
If the Bible claims were the only stretch: That would be a game changer. But our existence on this planet is beyond reason. This functioning planet is beyond reason. (YES, numerous HONEST atheist scientists admit this daily - but it keeps them researching, God Bless them.)
It leaves me feeling ungrounded, David. It leaves me feeling like investigative logic is untrustworthy, if we consider supernatural explanations on a par with natural explanations. The candy cane in my stocking probably did come from a fat fellow in a sleigh. Lee, you're the guy who is always calling on liberal and conservative Christians to get along better. If you really want that to happen, there needs to be mutual respect. I mean, if what you really mean is we all need to agree with how you see things, then that is not really bringing us together.
I am not saying it is a fact. But if you are saying I need to automatically assume a natural explanation then you are simply asking me to adopt your biases. Why look at evidence or think things through if I know from the outset what cannot happen? And again, you always speak out for liberal Christians whom you feel are stereotyped and attacked, but your dismissal of the view of billions of Christians seems arrogant and a roadblock to any dialogue.
Heck, if Marcus Borg and NT Wright can write a book together, I think we can disagree and still respect each other's thought processes.
I think we ARE able to respectfully disagree, David, since you are not taking the hard stance of insisting supernatural events are "well-corroborated historical facts." But I certainly can't take Joshua's stance that (for example) the ascensions of Jesus, Mohammed and Augustus into heaven are historic facts simply because somebody claimed to be a witness. Such things don't belong in history books.
David's post (No. 21) is a good recap of why belief in the resurrection is reasonable — a whole lot of people believed it to have happened very soon after it would have happened. The idea that Jesus was a divine entity of some sort worthy of being worshipped on par with Godself arose very early in the Christian tradition, early enough that even notable skeptics like Bart Ehrman find it remarkable.But none of that makes it "attested to and well corroborated as [a] historical fact," as Brent put it. The only witnesses to the event are quoted by the same sources that claim the event happened in the first place. That's circular, not corroborative.
Ehrman in How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee takes a couple of chapters to talk about the resurrection and seems to suggest he believes the nearly immediate reports of visions of the resurrected Jesus were grief- and regret-induced wish fulfillment, the kind of which has been documented elsewhere throughout history. Take it or leave it, but it's another bullet point for Lee's list of alternative explanations.
That said, I still think it's telling that even Ehrman agrees with more orthodox scholars like Larry Hurtado that Christian devotion of Jesus as God began very soon after Jesus' death and coincided with the firm belief that Jesus was no longer dead.
